| So what if Perl 6 people stalled on giving the okay for Parrot to migrate some implementation details to Parrot? My problem is that this gets argued both ways. This thread is far too nested anyhow, but here's my complaint. Yes, Parrot and Rakudo drifted apart. There were poor decisions all around. Patrick and Allison and I in particular talked extensively about how to improve things. We decided this: I personally volunteered to fix any bug, patch any memory leak, add any feature that Rakudo wanted. I spent a lot of time doing that. Several other people also volunteered to add any feature Rakudo wanted. Time and time again, we went to the Rakudo developers with proposals and they said "No" or "Not yet". Thus my work was mostly fixing bugs and making minor performance improvements. (The major improvements were in that list. So were major revisions of most parts of Parrot to make it smaller, simpler, and faster.) Then the NQP rewrite came. Parrot faced using a deprecated NQP for its compiler tools, adopting a deprecated NQP so it would keep working, or rewriting all of its compiler tools. At that point, I decided that there was no point in working on Parrot and left. I'll take responsibility for everything I did wrong (or for not doing things I should have done). I don't accept the current party line from Rakudo, however. To wit, "Parrot of course had to be abandoned, because it wasn't meeting Rakudo's needs." Parrot may or may never have succeeded. Rakudo may or may not have succeeded on Parrot. We'll never know. Yet the claim that Parrot developers weren't interested in making it work with Rakudo is nonsense. In my experience, it was the other way around. |